Categories
Blogroll
Archive
- May 2012 (15)
- April 2012 (21)
- March 2012 (19)
- February 2012 (22)
- January 2012 (28)
This won’t be a full review of the new book Crude World: The Violent Twilight of Oil by writer Peter Maass, as it was treated to good reviews already this past week in The New York Times and by my dear colleague Robert Kaplan in the Wall Street Journal. But I did want to flag this book as a solid natural security read. 
The bulk of this tome is a series of anecdotes in chapters themed of human misery: Plunder, Mirage, Greed, and Scarcity, for example. It is reminiscent of The End of Oil by Paul Roberts, one of my older favorites; it is striking that one substance can provide enough thought-provoking material for a seemingly endless stream of books.
A few things struck me in Crude World. The first is the corruption so often rampant in oil producing countries. This seems to be a big theme in foreign policy as of late. Last Sunday, Rep. Jane Harman wrote of Afghanistan in The Washington Post that “without a viable partner, the strategy will fail. That's why I say: ‘It's the corruption, stupid.’” In the G20 “Leaders’ Statement” resulting from last week’s Pittsburgh summit, world leaders declared that “We are committed to maintain the momentum in dealing with tax havens, money laundering, proceeds of corruption, terrorist financing, and prudential standards.” If corruption is seen as a new plague of geopolitics (note: not a concept I agree with) then this book could serve as a nice roadmap for some places to target.
As Maass notes in the chapter titled “Rot,” “Today, you needn’t be a Marxist to be interested in the role of natural resources in political conflicts.” Quite true. I consider myself and my collegues quite far from the Marxist camp, yet we explore daily on this blog the linkages, often stark ones, among resources, politics, and conflict that cannot be ignored in developing policies to secure the United States. That sentence, coupled with the author’s description of the first Gulf War in the chapter “Desire” recall a description by Peter Gleick in his April 1991 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article, “Environment and Security: The Clear Connections,” in which Gleick noted the ways energy and water were used in targeting, in threatening Iraq, and in the justifications of both sides for their actions. As he wrote almost two decades ago:
We live in an unusual period in history, as traditional military tensions and conflicts are becoming increasingly intertwined with new global challenges: widespread underdevelopment and poverty and large-scale environmental problems that threaten human health, economic equality, and international security. In many ways, the Persian Gulf war reflects these new issues…The political and ideological questions that now dominate international discourse will not become less important in the future: rather, they will become more tightly woven with other variables that loomed less large in the past.
Indeed. Maass derives from his exploration of that war, the current Iraq War, and many other situations around the world a far more nuanced view than one might expect. “[A]fter several months in Iraq,” he writes on page 138, “I realized how confounding oil can be.” While there are clear connections, pinpointing specifics can be extraordinarily difficult. At the intersection of natural resources and politics, the truth is often subjective. And as Maass described it in the book’s Introduction: “I knew that the war zones I’d visited since the 1980s were consequences rather than explanations.”
Photo Courtesty of Random House, Inc.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will unveil its much anticipated climate bill today, the Washington Post reports. The bill will mandate significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while “setting a limit on the cost of carbon allowances.”
At least one environmental analyst is skeptical of the U.S. State Department's new food security initiative, The New York Times reports. Meanwhile, the Guardian discusses the International Food Policy Research Institute's new report which finds that climate change will dramatically reduce food supplies in developing countries.
According to The New York Times Green Inc. blog, an 800 million barrel oil discovery in Uganda has brought both opportunity and conflict to the country.
Yesterday we noted that China is competing with other countries to tap new Nigerian oil sources. But the Financial Times reports that the Nigerian resistance group Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), known for sabotaging oil projects, has a problem with China's intentions and could result in increased violence in the region.
Finally, The New York Times reports that alternative energy projects may create a huge demand for water, which could increase tensions and ignite disputes in drought-prone regions like the American Southwest.
The Natural Security team has been very interested in critical minerals recently, and in the months to come we’re planning to look deeper into how minerals relate to U.S. national security. As part of our exploration, and hopefully because it informs blog readers like yourself, we will periodically take a good hard look at a particular mineral and issues related to its use and extraction. This week’s mineral of choice is lithium.
Recent reports of China’s corner on current production of rare earth minerals have caused quite a stir. In the recent proliferation of authors and institutes looking at U.S. mineral dependencies, it’s no longer just natural security geeks who have taken notice; the coverage has been widespread and mainstream.
With that in mind, today I’m looking at the second article in a three part series published in The New Yorker by Richard J. Barnet. The articles were excerpted from his book, The Lean Years, which examined the worldwide status of natural resources. A few weeks back, my colleague Mike “Ninja” McCarthy did a great review of the first essay, “The World’s Resources I- The Lean Years” that looked at “non-human energy sources.” The second part in the series, published on March 31, 1980, “The World’s Resources II- Minerals, Food, and Water” (subscription required), focused on the three distinct areas mentioned in its title. Although all sections of his essay are important and are clearly interrelated, I have chosen to look mostly at his first section on minerals, which echoes his own analytical focus in the essay.
A severe drought-induced dust storm smothered eastern Australia on Wednesday, September 23, 2009, stretching from northern Queensland all the way to the southern tip. According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News, the dust storm originated in abandoned agriculture fields that have not been planted on since the beginning of a multi-year drought. ABC News reported that the storm was the worst in 70 years and led to canceled flights, traffic collisions, respiratory health issues, and prevented firefighting operations near Brisbane where 20 wildfires rage on. According to the New Zealand Herald, Wednesday's dust storm even crossed the 2,160 kilometres Tasman Sea and fell on Auckland on Friday. Officials in Sydney warned that the city could face a second dust storm over the next several days.
As climate change exacerbates drought conditions, dust storms may become more severe and leave more communities susceptible to disruptions. For example, local communities in California have experienced drought-induced dust storms in the past. Worsening drought in California could increase the frequency and intensity of dust storms there.
Photo: Dust over eastern Australian. Courtesy of Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
This week has been full of major speeches—and some action—on natural security. President Obama addressed these issues not once, but twice at the United Nations. Meanwhile, the EPA is taking action on carbon emissions, and Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg discussed climate change in his keynote address at yesterday’s launch of an awesome new CNAS report by some of our colleagues on U.S.-China relations.
President Obama addressed climate change and food security as two top global issues in his speech to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday. This marks a dramatic departure from a long-time focus on threats posed by other states and terrorism as the primary focus of such major presidential addresses. Indeed, the theme of his speech revolved around a “common future” where all countries take their “share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.” An articulated policy on transnational threats that calls for integrated action is a step forward in successfully dealing with climate change, and other natural security issues as well.
With the opening of the Arctic and alternating droughts and floods across Africa, it may not seem like recent reports of poor hop and grape yields are major security concerns. But for the armed services, traditions and rituals are a major part of life. The same is arguably true of security and foreign policy leaders throughout U.S. history (for an in-depth review see the 1980 article “Leadership and Alcohol” by Hung L'Etang).
Tomorrow we will also do a weekly roundup on the UN activities of the week, but for today, we'll just say that we're thrilled of how much emphasis the President placed on natural security issues in yesterday's address.
“Pacific Gas and Electric considers climate change to be among the most serious issues ever for our company, our country, and the world.”
With those words, Peter Darbee, the Chairman, CEO, and President of Pacific Gas and Electric canceled his company’s membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In no uncertain terms, Darbee rejected the Chamber’s attempt to relitigate the scientific consensus about climate change. And I do mean relitigate – the Chamber has proposed that the EPA submit to a public “trial” on the science of climate change. Seriously.
It’s really encouraging that businesses, such as PG&E, are dispensing with such nonsense. As Darbee put it, the locus of the debate needs to shift to how to deal with climate change – “in our view, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.”
Today we wanted to just flag another new report out called “Natural Security,” by Washington, D.C.-based conservation group American Rivers. Obviously the group has a different take on this terminology than we do here at CNAS.
As Christine promised in yesterday’s post on the new Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force – which recommends that the United States ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) – this week’s Reading Old Magazines feature is about some of the original security thinking behind its negotiation. The UNCLOS was concluded in 1982, but two years earlier, Elliot L. Richardson, the President’s Special Representative to the Law of the Sea Conference, published an article in Foreign Affairs called “Power, Mobility, and the Law of the Sea” (subscription required). In this piece, Richardson explained some of the history of UNCLOS negotiations, but he also laid out exactly what the United States was hoping to achieve in the end. It’s a fascinating read, because it offers a view of a complex, ongoing U.S. diplomatic initiative, presented by the man responsible for negotiating the U.S. position.

In June of this year, President Obama launched an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, a group of 24 federal agency representatives led by the Council on Environmental Quality tasked with charting a new path forward on coordinating U.S. government policies and actions related to oceans and coastal areas. After several trips, meetings, and town halls around the country, the Task Force issued an interim report last week, which Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen tweeted, and of which he blogged, “This is an issue of critical strategic importance to our service and our vital public responsibilities as we carry out our maritime safety, security, and stewardship roles.”
The report sets the goals of ensuring that the country protects its marine ecosystems better, integrates science into management decisions, prepares to adapt to the effects of climate change, and balances these with security interests. It notes of our oceans that “their bounty contributes to our national well-being and security,” and that our “coastal regions and waters account for the great majority of the national economy” by supplying “food, fresh water, minerals, energy, and other natural resources and ecological benefits.”

At the intersection of water, energy, and biodiversity sits the Three Gorges Dam, seen here from space at the bottom right. The largest hydroelectric dam in the world—or electricity-generating plant of any kind, for that matter—the Three Gorges facility spans the Yangtze River, staves of downstream flooding, and will generate almost 20,000 megawatts when fully completed in 2011. The dam was constructed to help satiate China’s growing demand for energy. However, the construction represents a massive perturbation of the region’s ecology, which government officials have ceded will suffer dramatic losses to biodiversity and increased vulnerability to disaster. The ecological changes will likely destabilize livelihoods in the region, even as China attempts to employ hydroelectric power as a means of ensuring economic and national security.
Photo: New upstream reservoirs have filled up behind the Three Gorges Dam, causing environmental degradation and forcing hundreds of thousands of Chinese to migrate. Courtesy of the Earth Observatory at NASA.
This week, several Natural Security news items explored the operational and strategic challenges that the U.S. military will face as climate change progresses. Much attention was given to the High North as The New York Times discussed concerns over a warming Arctic, which will change the future operating and strategic environments by opening new sea lanes and allowing access to untapped natural resources. The Times reported on the first of many commercial voyages being made through the new, ice-free northern passage. Two German ships are also traveling from South Korea to Rotterdam, traversing the arctic and shaving off thousands of miles from their usual trade route through the Suez Canal.
Yesterday, CNAS hosted Rear Admiral Philip Cullom, Director of the U.S. Navy's Fleet Readiness Division, and Rear Admiral David Titley, Oceanographer and Navigator of the U.S. Navy, for Climate Change, Energy, and Maritime Security: Promoting the Dialogue. Representatives from the military, Capitol Hill, the Executive branch, other research organizations, and the private sector joined us for this off-the-record conversation, which focused on how the maritime services and those who work with them are thinking about energy security and climate change issues. It was a great conversation in which a few overarching themes were clear.
First, many of the Navy’s leaders not only care about climate change and energy security, but also want their service to be forward-thinking on both issues and provide leadership for the country. Second, participants seemed to take a holistic view of these problems. All aspects of the problem are actively considered, from reducing fuel dumping by aircraft, to using lower-carbon fuels, to better rewarding men and women in uniform for environmental stewardship. Notably, participants emphasized that they saw energy security and climate change as inseparable parts of a single challenge – an idea that has gained acceptance in recent years but which is still challenged at times. There is significant collaboration between the Navy’s Task Force Climate Change and Task Force Energy, led by our two guest Admirals, showing that the Navy is active in linking energy and climate issues.
As countries battle a wave food shortages, trying to ensure supplies and qualm domestic fears, the consequences of food insecurity are growing increasingly vivid these days. Pakistan is described as being at extreme risk by a recent Food Security Risk Index by a British firm– indeed, 19 Pakistanis were killed this week in a scramble for food distributed for Ramadan in a poor Karachi neighborhood. How should we view data or interpret these kinds of rankings for natural security subjects?
While data plays an important role in understanding the world of natural security, it is, at times, not as readily available as it is for other security issues, nor is it consistently clear what underlying assumptions are actually true. I’m going to be occasionally looking at regressions, data sets and graphs from a variety of sources in order to look at some of the benefits—and drawbacks—of different types of quantitative analysis in natural security.
Yemen is becoming one of the most closely watched countries in the Middle East; ranked 18th in Foreign Policy’s “Failed State Index.” And one of the issues that we have been curious about here in the Natural Security program is how Yemen’s water crisis is combining with existing trends in Yemen to undermine stability and contribute to violence. I recently spoke with Gregory Johnsen, a Ph.D. candidate in Near Eastern studies at Princeton University and a former Fulbright Fellow in Yemen, who spoke with me about his experiences and helped me better understand the interplay between Yemen’s water scarcity and the myriad security challenges there.
Johnsen has written for a variety of publications including Foreign Policy, The American Interest, the Christian Science Monitor, the Boston Globe and West Point's CTC Sentinel. He is also a co-contributor to Waq al-Waq, a blog that offers nuanced analyses of Yemen’s history and political affairs.
Rogers: As a Fulbright Fellow you spent your time in Yemen and were able to see firsthand how severe water scarcity engages existing issues, such as a weak central government and rising population growth, to contribute to instability and violence. Then you returned and co-authored this great piece in Foreign Policy back in February aptly titled “The Wells Run Dry.” I’m curious – how have you seen the situation in Yemen change since you published this article?